This isn't a religious discussion - let's just say that religion (generally) is something a future member of a RF may have to give up.

I think that of all the items mentioned the 2 that strike me as key (for me) is

(1) the loss of spontaneity - you know that great call that says "Can you take tomorrow off and let's go for a picnic" or "I fancy a day at the races" or "How about a long weekend". Security, advising local police, advising owners of said racecourse ...... and on it goes. I think the planned order of life could be draining.

(2) Friendship + Trust - unless you can trust an individual absolutely then friendship is difficult to find and keep. the "Mates down the pub" and "girly chats" dont seem easy to achieve.

__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

But Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are indeed examples of two different Christian denominations. So if a person switches from one to the other is that not giving up their denomination?

That was not the point of my post. Keb 4266 stated when "a Presbyterian marries a Roman Catholic (they) technically give up their denomination," which is not true. Some non-Catholics (like my father-in-law) believe that when you marry a Catholic you become Catholic, which is not true. My husband was a Baptist before I married him and he is still a Baptist and I am still Catholic.

owever, I think it's a big step for a person like Autumn Phillips to give up her denomination in order to allow her husband to remain in line for the throne.

There is also a difference between converting from Catholicism to Protestantism and converting, as Autumn did, from Catholicism to Anglicanism (which in itself is a Reformed Catholic church). There are many similarities between the two, more so than between them and Protestant faiths, although there are also some key differences.

As to how much of a big deal it was, that would all just depend on how religious Autumn was to begin with (or how religious Peter is). She could have very easily been baptized Catholic and the like, but not considered herself to be overly religious - as such, converting, while still required, may not have been a big deal to her. I'm not saying that it wasn't, just that we don't know it was.

Quote:

It would have been a bigger step, in some ways, if Prince William of Gloucester's love, Zsuzsu, had converted from Judaism to Christianity. She would not have been required to do so, had they married, but if they had had children, they would have been raised Episcopal in order to retain their succession rights.

Individuals don't have to be raised within the Anglican Church in order to retain their succession rights to the British throne, they simply can't be Catholic. Having a Jewish heir might be an issue if it seemed like they would actually inherit the throne, as the monarch is he's of the CoE, but they can remain in the actual succession.

There are many European royals who are not Anglican and remain in the line of succession through their descent from Sophie of Hanover. A really good example is George I, who was baptized and raised in the Lutheran faith before he became King.

There is also a difference between converting from Catholicism to Protestantism and converting, as Autumn did, from Catholicism to Anglicanism (which in itself is a Reformed Catholic church). There are many similarities between the two, more so than between them and Protestant faiths, although there are also some key differences.

As to how much of a big deal it was, that would all just depend on how religious Autumn was to begin with (or how religious Peter is). She could have very easily been baptized Catholic and the like, but not considered herself to be overly religious - as such, converting, while still required, may not have been a big deal to her. I'm not saying that it wasn't, just that we don't know it was.

Individuals don't have to be raised within the Anglican Church in order to retain their succession rights to the British throne, they simply can't be Catholic. Having a Jewish heir might be an issue if it seemed like they would actually inherit the throne, as the monarch is he's of the CoE, but they can remain in the actual succession.

There are many European royals who are not Anglican and remain in the line of succession through their descent from Sophie of Hanover. A really good example is George I, who was baptized and raised in the Lutheran faith before he became King.

Did the "rules" change recently so that a member of the BRF could marry a Catholic without losing their right of succession?

Did the "rules" change recently so that a member of the BRF could marry a Catholic without losing their right of succession?

It's in the process of being changed. The problem with changing the rules is that all 16 Commonwealth Realms have to pass the changes, and as of yet not all of them have done so. The change doesn't come in to place until they all pass it (as with the equal primogeniture). There is a loophole, though, in that the spouse cannot be Catholic at the wedding, but can convert later (which... Either the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of Kent's wife did). Similarly, children being raised Catholic remain in the succession until they're confirmed (or at least the British ones do).

Oh, also, the children of the excluded person (when someone marries a Catholic) can be in the succession if they're not Catholic themselves, as happened with Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's children.

I believe that the Anglican church, for all its liturgical traditions, is generally considered Protestant. Yes, it shares an ancient liturgy (if used instead of the modern version) with the Roman Catholic church, but it belongs to the inter-faith organizations of Protestantism, which the Roman Catholic Church does not. The issue of communion can be a stark one between the two. Some Catholic pastors and Episcopal pastors will not allow their parish members to have communion at the other's altar. Or even in the nursing home. It has become an "issue" in my town when the Catholic priest got mad at the Episcopal priest for giving communion in the nursing home to Catholics. I realize, Cepe, that this is not a religious thread, but these are issues a bride could run into if moving from the Catholic to the Anglican or Episcopal church. Possibly it would be smoothed over for royalty in a way that the average member would not experience. I was shocked to read here on TRF that Maxima is Catholic but has permission from the Vatican to have her children raised Protestant. I do not know if that is true, but I read it here and it was not challenged, to my knowledge. For the Vatican to give a formal permission such as this could not have happened when I was young and knew more about these things. There might have been a "wink,wink" situation but never a formal decree. Under the present pope, ecumenical things such as this may become more common, but Pope Francis has surprised everyone and cannot be second guessed. In any case, I think "transfers" of royal fiancees from Catholic to Protestant IS a big deal unless special arrangements are made because the parties are royal. As far as transfers from Judaism to Protestant, this would be highly possible in Reform Judaism without the bride being alienated from her family, but not possible in Orthodox Judaism, without a "wink,wink" situation. I am familiar with the Judaism situation from study with a rabbi and also because some members of my husband's family have had some conversion struggles. These things can alienate families.

I believe that the Anglican church, for all its liturgical traditions, is generally considered Protestant. Yes, it shares an ancient liturgy (if used instead of the modern version) with the Roman Catholic church, but it belongs to the inter-faith organizations of Protestantism, which the Roman Catholic Church does not. The issue of communion can be a stark one between the two. Some Catholic pastors and Episcopal pastors will not allow their parish members to have communion at the other's altar. Or even in the nursing home. It has become an "issue" in my town when the Catholic priest got mad at the Episcopal priest for giving communion in the nursing home to Catholics. I realize, Cepe, that this is not a religious thread, but these are issues a bride could run into if moving from the Catholic to the Anglican or Episcopal church. Possibly it would be smoothed over for royalty in a way that the average member would not experience. I was shocked to read here on TRF that Maxima is Catholic but has permission from the Vatican to have her children raised Protestant. I do not know if that is true, but I read it here and it was not challenged, to my knowledge. For the Vatican to give a formal permission such as this could not have happened when I was young and knew more about these things. There might have been a "wink,wink" situation but never a formal decree. Under the present pope, ecumenical things such as this may become more common, but Pope Francis has surprised everyone and cannot be second guessed. In any case, I think "transfers" of royal fiancees from Catholic to Protestant IS a big deal unless special arrangements are made because the parties are royal. As far as transfers from Judaism to Protestant, this would be highly possible in Reform Judaism without the bride being alienated from her family, but not possible in Orthodox Judaism, without a "wink,wink" situation. I am familiar with the Judaism situation from study with a rabbi and also because some members of my husband's family have had some conversion struggles. These things can alienate families.

While the Anglican Church has many similarities with Protestant churches it in itself is not a Protestant Church. Like Orthodox churches it is somewhere outside of both Catholicism and Protestantism. It often gets lumped into Protestantism because it is a reformed church.

It's often taught as such in schools, I think just because it simplifies things (and because there's a prevalent misconception regarding it).

The Anglican Church didn't really evolve out of the protest movement in a similar way to Protestant religions, it just happened to have it's genesis around the same time. What people often forget is that individuals who were Catholic had a huge hand in forming the Anglican Church - including Henry VIII.

During Henry's reign the church came into existence not because Henry agreed with the various protests - he even wrote articles in support of the Catholic Church - but because he wanted a divorce. Thus the break wasn't from the church's teachings so much as it was from Rome. The major changes that happened within it were more about Henry seizing power and wealth than about creating a Protestant faith.

The church itself seemed to go back and forth between being more Catholic and more Protestant during the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Mary, depending on the beliefs of each (as well as the beliefs of the advisors and wives of Henry), but when Elizabeth came to the throne she sought a way to branch the divide. She didn't return the church to Rome, but she didn't go the way of Protestantism (which in England at the time was very puritanical). Instead she took a middle-of-the-road approach; the CoE became something that was both reformed and catholic at the same time. It's outside of the Roman church, but it's also outside of the Protestant one too.

I like to think of it (affectionately, as my family is largely Anglican) as the younger, half brother of the RC, while the Protestants are the crazy neighbours down the street. They're all in the same area and have similar beliefs, but in many ways the RC, Anglican, and Orthodox churches are more like each other than any of them is like the Protestants.

It's in the process of being changed. The problem with changing the rules is that all 16 Commonwealth Realms have to pass the changes, and as of yet not all of them have done so. The change doesn't come in to place until they all pass it (as with the equal primogeniture). There is a loophole, though, in that the spouse cannot be Catholic at the wedding, but can convert later (which... Either the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of Kent's wife did). Similarly, children being raised Catholic remain in the succession until they're confirmed (or at least the British ones do).

The Duchess of Kent was the one who converted after her marriage.

British children remain in the line of succession until they themselves have 'professed' the RC faith and as such they have to be confirmed not just baptised.

The new laws have to be passed in the other realms - I think there are three where it is automatic due to the wording of their constitutions.

The other realms, with the possible exception of Canada, haven't even bothered to introduce the legislation and as George was a boy don't see the need. I suspect they also don't see the need to worry about the rights to be in the line of succession of someone like say Prince Michael or the fact that Eugenie still needs to formally ask permission to marry or her children are illegitimate.

I spoke to my local MP a few days ago and asked him about this issue and he said that as far as he is aware there in no intention of worrying about it in Australia at the moment - but he also reminded me that he is a backbencher, new to parliament and not in the inner decision making of the party so it maybe on the agenda but as far as he is aware it isn't planned by the current (new) government and that there are still the constitutional questions to sort out about whether or not the states have to also pass the legislation and if so do they have to do it first or whether it has to go to a referendum.

So instead of a discussion on what partners give up in order to join a Rf, we have a discussion on the differences between protestant, anglican, anglo-catholic and catholic faiths. I'll leave you to it but perhaps someone should rename this thread?

It was just a tangent taken because of the discussion that royal brides often have to change religions (and the subset of when it's a conversion and when it's not). Yes, it's a bit off topic, but hardly the end of the world.

When I saw this question, my first thought wasn't religion but having no privacy anymore. I like to travel and go explore things, something you really couldn't do anymore or if you did, everything down to the last detail would have to be planned out. You're security would be more important than you're privacy. Nothing could be done out of the blue.

I'll bet some enterprising women wear disguises so they can to out incognito. They might even go out with a security man posing as a friend or relative, also incognito. I'll bet it happens fairly often but it would take some planning if one lived in, say, Kensington Palace and had reporters staring at one's front and back doors at all times. One might arrange to dig a tunnel to the outside world? The tunnel could work until it was discovered.
I remember a History Channel presentation on the architectural wonders of Paisley Abbey, which included an underground sewer tall enough for a man to walk through, in case he needed to elude somebody. The sewer was constructed with gothic arches, as I recall, and was elaborate, with several passageways going in different directions. This abbey existed primarily in a time of constant war between England and Scotland, so the tunnels may have seen some use.
A wife could use a tunnel too.

I'll bet some enterprising women wear disguises so they can to out incognito. They might even go out with a security man posing as a friend or relative, also incognito. I'll bet it happens fairly often but it would take some planning if one lived in, say, Kensington Palace and had reporters staring at one's front and back doors at all times.

I know that I've read on one or more occasions that Diana, Princess of Wales had used wigs and glasses/sunglasses in the past in order to slip about without being recognized.

I would imagine that its quite stressful to have to mind every move one makes along with trying to focus on what is needed to get through the day and even in disguise, to be on constant alert to avoid recognition.

__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~